Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-01-22
Protection VI. Exemptlon.

We have carefully read what the
Charleston Nc,cs and carrier says
in reply TO our recent editorial aTalgn-
ing il for Inconsistency in advocating
the exemption of manufactures from
direct taxation whist opposing a pro
toctivc tariff and We are compellcdtosay
that its attempt to show that no such in
consistency exists is a complete failure.
But as it may be rejoinod that We are
not in a Judicial frame OF mind 50 far
H. Tie point at issue is concerned, We
shall quote the (OagisT-JDU0Qi, which
is as much opposed to protecting Anne
ncan industries rs the NeWS art CJU-
ricr is, to prove that our Charleston
contemporary is guilty of Inconsistency
rs charged in our indictment. The
COuricr-JourHGi says
The Richmond Na) Dispatch lectures thc
ChailretOn Mans dud C.ur,eT not llJgically
about it, Inconsistency Ia approval Of n system
# relieving lOcal cottOn-mills of their share OF
the common burden OF taxation. Tbs policy
wCnid accomplish the same result IN enc "a
the policy Of mOnODOlisiic protection. which
iho Charleston NerJ dnj CotTisr wisely OPP
roses IL would Increase the taxation on other
INTERESTS for tie hcuont of the cotton mills,
tlra making the latter a privileged interest,
which Is an economic enormity anywhere
The Co,Ujcr-JoJTRai is good author
ity on this subject. It's little paragraph
covers every question raised by the
Meas and courier Nevertheless, We
will comment further upon those ques-
tons. We quote
As the law existed IN South Carolina, only
The oGpitHl actually invested In certain manu-
Factories was exempted from taxation. The
land or which he factories were erected was
not exempt This land increased In value in
CONSEQUENCE Of the erection OF the factories,
and the state derived from h a larger revenue
than il the factories had not been built. There
wa- not. therefore, any loss Of revenue, on any
additional tax, By reason OF the exemption.
Then. again. the exemption was for "a limited
periCd Of time. and il was ca able o! proof that
The yaice OF the manuia tories, a. subject 10
taxation at the end Of the ten years Of eKemp-
ton would he such as 90 enable the state TO
reeOup itsclf Ia "a short time for any possible.
an imaginary. or consequential loss or damage
duri 'g the exemption period.
"1he essence Of the protective system Is the
prevention oi coupcuhon, and the object OF
tariff taxation l. 20 rai-c prices artiilcially 10
the level Of what Is assumed 70 be the lowest
got OF production M this country. The effect
II tho eXemTtiOn Of maputa tories from taxa
ton for a period Of years Is 10 Increase compe-
tiion. The people are not taxed 10y Reason OF
that exemption as they are taxed through the
taiif. Inc additional employment furnished
IL. together with the profits Of the factories, a
dhe'T GdyRniage, win 30 corresponding draw
back or diS6dYantaga. Ia saOrt, protection ~
taxes he whole people Tor the benefit Ot the
feM while ggGfWVfl ton fIeaz ffa foW IrDfu
lion for 1he good Of the many"
That is the argument Of the protec-
tionists from beginning to ending.
They say that protection results in new
buildings for factories largerreyenue
10 the State higher prices to the
farmer. They say that every class is
benefited by protection. They say
that protection insures competition--so
much competition that prices often fall
80 low that foreign goods cannot come
into this country at all. they say that
additional employment" is one great
object OF protective tariffs. They say
that the profits of the factories benefit
the entire community. And certainly
il must be true that if JONES, BRowS,
and the rest of the manufacturers be
exempted from paying ten.thousand dol
lars Of taxes, "the whole people" o.
the State must be taxed TO make up fol
that exemption. Surely our contempt
nary would not have the ten Thousand
dollars made up by few taxpayers
in word, the Neses and Courier can
NOT advance one argument in favor ofex